GeForce GTX 285 vs Tesla K20c
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K20c with GeForce GTX 285, including specs and performance data.
K20c outperforms GTX 285 by a whopping 137% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 565 | 788 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | 0.26 |
| Power efficiency | 2.85 | 1.32 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | GT200B |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) | 23 December 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,199 | $359 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 285 has 63% better value for money than Tesla K20c.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2496 | 240 |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 648 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 204 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 146.8 | 51.84 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.524 TFLOPS | 0.7085 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 32 |
| TMUs | 208 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 208 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1280 KB | 256 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1300 MHz | 1242 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 208.0 GB/s | 159.0 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | no data | 128bit |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.5 | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.28 | 3.49 |
| Recency | 12 November 2012 | 23 December 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 204 Watt |
Tesla K20c has a 137% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 400% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 285, on the other hand, has 10% lower power consumption.
The Tesla K20c is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla K20c is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 285 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
